The Claimant claimed an infringement of their patent, and the respondents counter-claimed for its revocation there having been undisclosed prior art. There were differences between the equipment alleged to be infringing and the patent. The two questions of fact which must be answered are whether the variant has any effect upon the way the ‘invention’ works and, if so, would that then have been obvious to the skilled man. The difference here was material. Nevertheless, the claim of obviousness also failed.
Judges:
Justice Pumfrey
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Ch 16
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162938
